Loading ITAT cases…
366 orders · Page 3 of 8
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea that the option under Section 115BAD was filed by mistake. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the taxable income under the old regime as if the option had not been exercised, provided it was not opted for in previous years.
The Tribunal held that the donation was not genuine and was merely an accommodation entry, upholding the disallowance of the deduction. The court noted that mere payment through banking channels and production of receipts are insufficient when there is overwhelming evidence of the recipient party's involvement in fraudulent activities.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to the delay without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the borrowings and corresponding interest expenditure were accepted in the year of the original transaction (slump sale), and there was no change in facts or law, the disallowance in the subsequent year was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the interest expenditure was excessive.
The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2019-2020, reinstating an addition of INR 1,52,98,000/- based on seized documents. For AY 2014-2015 and AY 2020-2021, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that since the borrowings and corresponding interest expenditure were accepted in the year of the original transaction (slump sale), and there was no change in facts or law, the disallowance in the subsequent year was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the interest expenditure was excessive.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, considering the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that the notional journal entry for outstanding salary liability transferred to partners' capital accounts was not an unexplained credit. It also found no reasonable basis to treat the salary paid to relatives as excessive. Therefore, both additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2019-2020, reinstating an addition of INR 1,52,98,000/- based on seized documents. For AY 2014-2015 and AY 2020-2021, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the AO lacked valid and tangible information and failed to comply with mandatory pre-conditions. The approval for reopening was also deemed mechanical and based on incorrect facts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently discharged its onus by furnishing Election Cards and 7/12 documents, proving the identity and cultivator status of the payees. The AO's reasons for rejection were found to be frivolous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default because it was bound to comply with the interim directions of the Madras High Court. The non-deduction of tax under these circumstances did not attract the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the JDA did not constitute a transfer of a capital asset as ownership remained with the assessee and possession was only for development purposes, not in part performance of a sale. Therefore, capital gains were not taxable in the year of the JDA's execution.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default because it was bound to comply with the interim directions of the Madras High Court. The non-deduction of tax under these circumstances did not attract the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default because it was bound to comply with the interim directions of the Madras High Court. The non-deduction of tax under these circumstances did not attract the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure and business expenditure operate in different fields, and there is no bar to claiming deduction under Section 80G for eligible donations, even if they also qualify as CSR. The specific restrictions under Section 80G for certain funds do not apply here.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default because it was bound to comply with the interim directions of the Madras High Court. The non-deduction of tax under these circumstances did not attract the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure and business expenditure operate in different fields, and there is no bar to claiming deduction under Section 80G for eligible donations, even if they also qualify as CSR. The specific restrictions under Section 80G for certain funds do not apply here.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default because it was bound to comply with the interim directions of the Madras High Court. The non-deduction of tax under these circumstances did not attract the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption and refund due.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not follow the amended provisions of Sections 147, 148, 148A, 149, and 151 of the Act, which came into effect from April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 was considered void and invalid.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption and refund due.
The Tribunal held that since there was no evidence of the assessee undertaking any contract or receiving any income from the said party, the addition could not be made. Consequently, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal noted that the AO had proceeded to reopen the assessment under Section 153C for the six years preceding the date of search in the case of the Benefit Group, but incorrectly calculated the period. The AO received the seized material on 28.08.2018 and recorded his satisfaction note on 29.08.2018. However, instead of initiating assessment proceedings for the six assessment years immediately preceding this date (AY 2013-14 to AY 2018-19), the AO initiated proceedings for AY 2011-12 to AY 2016-17. Crucially, the AO did not issue any notice under Section 153C for the assessment year under consideration, AY 2017-18, and proceeded to frame the assessment under Section 143(3). The Tribunal relied on the proviso to Section 153A and the first proviso to Section 153C, stating that pending assessments on the date of receipt of seized material or recording of satisfaction would abate, and the only course available to the AO was to proceed under Section 153C. Therefore, the assessment order passed without issuing a notice under Section 153C was without jurisdiction and quashed. The assessee's appeal was allowed on this legal ground.
The Tribunal held that since there was no evidence of the assessee undertaking any contract or receiving any income from the said party, the addition could not be made. Consequently, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal noted that the AO had proceeded to reopen the assessment under Section 153C for the six years preceding the date of search in the case of the Benefit Group, but incorrectly calculated the period. The AO received the seized material on 28.08.2018 and recorded his satisfaction note on 29.08.2018. However, instead of initiating assessment proceedings for the six assessment years immediately preceding this date (AY 2013-14 to AY 2018-19), the AO initiated proceedings for AY 2011-12 to AY 2016-17. Crucially, the AO did not issue any notice under Section 153C for the assessment year under consideration, AY 2017-18, and proceeded to frame the assessment under Section 143(3). The Tribunal relied on the proviso to Section 153A and the first proviso to Section 153C, stating that pending assessments on the date of receipt of seized material or recording of satisfaction would abate, and the only course available to the AO was to proceed under Section 153C. Therefore, the assessment order passed without issuing a notice under Section 153C was without jurisdiction and quashed. The assessee's appeal was allowed on this legal ground.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4,03,973/- was not sustainable as it was made solely on the basis of the difference between bank credits and disclosed turnover, without properly appreciating the assessee's explanations. There was also a discrepancy in the figures considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in using the Section 143(1) computation as the starting point for a Section 143(3) assessment without independent application of mind and opportunity to the assessee. It also held that ESOP expenses incurred for employee compensation are revenue in nature and allowable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessees' bonafide ignorance of the law. It held that compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessees' bonafide ignorance of the law. It held that compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessees' bonafide ignorance of the law. It held that compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessees' bonafide ignorance of the law. It held that compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessees' bonafide ignorance of the law. It held that compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessees' bonafide ignorance of the law. It held that compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessees' bonafide ignorance of the law. It held that compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessees' bonafide ignorance of the law. It held that compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the impugned amount and examine the assessee's contentions, granting the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that he had Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash, considering he was a co-owner of the property. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,05,000/- was deleted.
The Tribunal held that treating the return as valid by the Revenue and then disallowing the deduction is contradictory. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessees' bonafide ignorance of the law. It held that compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal restored the issue of commission payment benchmarking to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence. The Revenue's grounds regarding disallowance for commission payments and under Section 14A were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings completed in the name of a deceased person, despite knowledge of the death, render the assessment order void and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal restored the issue of commission payment benchmarking to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence. The Revenue's grounds regarding disallowance for commission payments and under Section 14A were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2,02,000 was unsustainable as the cash deposits were explained by prior withdrawals from retirement benefits and the Revenue failed to disprove the assessee's explanation. The addition for salary income was also unwarranted as it was duly reflected in Form 26AS and salary details.
The Tribunal restored the issue of commission payment benchmarking to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence. The Revenue's grounds regarding disallowance for commission payments and under Section 14A were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessees' bonafide ignorance of the law. It held that compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant the assessees a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The assessees were instructed to provide necessary documents and update their contact information.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant the assessees a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The assessees were instructed to provide necessary documents and update their contact information.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant the assessees a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The assessees were instructed to provide necessary documents and update their contact information.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant the assessees a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The assessees were instructed to provide necessary documents and update their contact information.